“Much of the Western world will require defaults, a savings tax and higher inflation to clear the way for recovery as debt levels reach a 200-year high, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund.

“The IMF working paper said debt burdens in developed nations have become extreme by any historical measure and will require a wave of haircuts, either negotiated 1930s-style write-offs or the standard mix of measures used by the IMF in its ‘toolkit’ for emerging market blow-ups.”

Note the IMF’s use of the word “blow-ups”. The IMF implies that the conclusions and recommendations advanced in their recent “working paper” are ultimately based on IMF presumption that the “Western World” is on the verge of an economic “blow-up”.

“The size of the problem suggests that restructurings will be needed, for example, in the periphery of Europe, far beyond anything discussed in public to this point,” said the paper, by Harvard professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.”

What’s “restructuring”?

It means that creditors “voluntarily” agree to “take a haircut” and accept, say, only 30% of the money that’s due from borrowers.

I.e., if a creditor loaned $1 million, his expected return will be “restructured” to receive, say, only $300,000 as payment in full rather than the $1 million that was originally promised to be repaid.

Q: Why would anyone voluntarily agree to accept a 70% loss on a $1 million loan?

A: Because, if they don’t agree to “restructure,” the government borrower will simply default on the entire $1 million debt. Compelled to recognize that collecting $300,000 is better than collecting $0 thousand, the creditors “voluntarily agree” to “restructure” their loans so as to allow government borrowers to engage in overt theft and avoid admitting publicly that they’re bankrupt.

• Insofar as the IMF admits that “the size of the problem” is “far beyond anything discussed in public to this point,” it appears that the size of the sovereign/national debt problem is much larger than almost anyone suspects. Thus, we have an “official” admission that the true magnitudes of western governments’ national debts have been, so far, hidden from the world.

For example, Obama tells us that the “official” national debt is $17 trillion. But other sources claim that debt is actually over $200 trillion. The IMF report implies that the true size of the US national debt is likely to be closer to $200 trillion than $17 trillion.

• How will the American people and the world react when they learn the true size of their national debts? There’s a potential for panic in those reactions and possible financial catastrophe. So, it’s odd that the IMF would risk those dangers by releasing a report that admits the debt may be enormous. Nevertheless, the IMF implied that the true sizes of national debts for a number of nations can no longer be hidden and may be made public in the near future.

These IMF admissions imply that a financial implosion affecting much of the Western World is at least inevitable, and may be imminent.

• The Telegraph article continues:

“The paper said policy elites in the West are still clinging to the illusion that rich countries are different from poorer regions and can therefore chip away at their debts with a blend of austerity cuts, growth, and tinkering (‘forbearance’).

“The presumption is that advanced economies ‘do not resort to gimmicks’ such as debt restructuring and repression, which would ‘give up hard-earned credibility’ and throw the economy into a ‘vicious circle’.”

Credibility = confidence = fiat dollar value. Insofar as our government is forced to engage in “gimmicks” to sustain the illusion of its own solvency, government will lose credibility and public confidence, and push the value of the fiat dollar lower (inflation) while the prices of goods, services, and commodities (like gold) go higher.

The previous graph is misleading insofar as it displays the average amount of debt of 22 advanced nations’ in relation to their GDPs. The graph implies that this average amount of debt is now about 250% of the 22 advanced nations’ GDP. The US is bundled into that group of 22 advanced market economies and is therefore individually invisible to the average reader.

If we divide the official national debt of $17 trillion, by the $16 trillion annual GDP, the result is an official national-debt/GDP ratio of about 106%. We owe about 106% as much as we earn each year. That’s not good. It may not even be tolerable. But it’s not terrible. And it’s only about 40% of the 250% average national debt for all 22 “advanced markets”. So, compared to the other 21, we’re doing OK.

However, while the US annual GDP is about $16 trillion and President Obama claims that the total national debt is about $17 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office has admitted that, including unfunded liabilities, the true National Debt is over $200 trillion.

But, if we divide the $200 trillion national debt by our $16 trillion annual GDP, we’ll see that the US is running a national-debt/GDP ratio of about 1,250%—and that is terrible, catastrophic, and unsustainable.

There’s no way that more than 20% of the $200 trillion US national debt can be repaid. US creditors will eventually suffer an 80% “haircut”—and probably a 90% “haircut”.

As I’ve warned repeatedly for five years, What Can’t Be Paid, Won’t be Paid. If you folks read, understood and agreed with those warnings, you did what you could to get your savings out of paper dollars and into something tangible. You avoided paper “promises to pay” and instead acquired actual “payments” in the form of land, guns, bullets, tools, gold or silver.

And now, we have the IMF releasing a study that admits what I’ve told you for years. The national debt can’t be paid . . . so it won’t be paid . . . there’s bound to be a “blow-up” . . . and, one way or another, government’s creditors will be robbed of much of their wealth.

“But the [IMF] paper says this mantra [that advanced economies are not subject to the same economic rules as emerging economies] borders on “collective amnesia” of European and US history, and is built on “overly optimistic” assumptions that risk doing far more damage to credibility in the end.”

The debt problem won’t disappear or be eliminated by a national bout of positive thinking. While government can postpone the day of reckoning, while it does, the problem only gets worse. Postponing the inevitable to avoid some relatively small pain today, will only condemn us to suffer a greater pain tomorrow.

“While use of debt pooling in the eurozone can reduce the need for restructuring or defaults, it comes at the cost of higher burdens for northern taxpayers.”

In other words, by “pooling” the debts of Greece with the debts of, say, Germany, Greek creditors can avoid the need to “restructure” their debts and “voluntarily” suffer massive losses on the assets they’d loaned to Greece.

Hooray for the creditors!

But, for Greek creditors to avoid taking a huge financial loss, German taxpayers will be forced to pay a significant tax increase. By means of “debt pooling” the original creditors will be saved, and the original debtors will be exempted from paying their debts—all by means of finding new “debtors”. I.e., the debt owed by the irresponsible Greeks will be foisted off onto the shoulders of the responsible Germans. The creditors won’t lose but the German taxpayers (who didn’t borrow the original currency or benefit from the original loan) will.

But, no matter how you figure it, the massive national debts will cause somebody to lose big time. The debt can’t be paid. It won’t be paid. Someone must therefore suffer a huge loss. The main question is: Who has enough money to pay southern Europe’s debts who is also dumb enough to do so?

The answer du jour is “northern Europe”.

But will the industrious peoples of northern Europe agree to pay off the debts of the Greek, Italian, Spanish and possibly French party-animals?

I doubt that northern Europe is technically capable for repaying all of southern Europe’s debts. I’m sure the northerners won’t agree to repay much of the southerners’ debts.

But even if Europe’s “northern taxpayers” consent to make good on southern Europe’s debt, they won’t (as the IMF writes) be simply “burdened” by “debt pooling”—they’ll be robbed. Nevertheless, this “debt pooling” will be defined as a “burden” (rather than a a robbery) because the robbery will be sanctioned by governments of the northern (productive) countries and of the EU.

“This [paying the southern countries’ debts] could drag the European Monetary Unit core states [northern countries] into a recession and aggravate their own debt and ageing crises. The clear implication of the IMF paper is thatGermany and the creditor core would do better to bite the bullet on big write-offs immediately rather than buying time with creeping debt mutualisation.”

“Debt mutualisation” is just another fancy term for “debt pooling”. They both mean sharing the debts—but not the assets, of course, and certainly not the profits. It means that financial entities that are “too big to fail” (like JPMorgan here in the US or Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. in Europe) will generously agree to share their debt obligations with the “northern countries” who are productive and therefore have some savings. In the end, “mutualisation” is merely another fancy word to conceal a massive robbery and some governments’ bankruptcy.

“The [IMF] paper says the Western debt burden is now so big that rich states will need same tonic of debt haircuts, higher inflation and financial repression—defined as an “opaque tax on savers”—as used in countless IMF rescues for emerging markets.”

Who are these “savers”? They’re the people and nations who are industrious, productive and sufficiently responsible to have saved some of their earnings.

Overly indebted western nations (“borrowers”) are now to be treated like primitive, child-like and irresponsible “emerging markets”—and rightfully so. They thought they were different. They thought they could play the fool and live forever on more and more credit. They thought they were “too big to fail” and would therefore never have to pay their debts.

They were wrong. I know it’s hard to believe, but even the rich and powerful are subject to the same economic rules as the rest of us. Pay your debts or be declared bankrupt.

• Like the industrious peoples of northern Europe, if you’re saving money in a bank account, the IMF proposes to tax your savings and force you to pay someone else’s debts.

Q: Why impose a savings tax?

A: In order to: 1) rob you “legally” (by means of government edict); 2) give your savings to the irresponsible and thereby reward the non-productive; and 3) force you stop saving and start spending in order to stimulate the economy.

Implications:

1. If the IMF is willing to advocate taxing savers today, you can reasonably suppose that your savings may be actually taxed within the next twelve to twenty-four months.

2. If you’re the kind of person who’s determined to save some of your wealth, you’d better start looking for a means to do so besides using taxable bank accounts denominated in paper or digital fiat dollars. (Hint, hint: you may want to consider purchasing physical gold or silver.)

“The IMF wrote, ‘The magnitude of the overall debt problem facing advanced economies today is difficult to overstate. The current central government debt in advanced economies is approaching a two-century high-water mark.’

If the “magnitude of the overall debt problem in the western economies is difficult to overstate, it will be doubly difficult to ever repay.

If the “current central government debt in advanced economies is approaching a two-century high-water mark.” We can reasonably ask, When in history have total governmental debts ever be higher? And, When in history has such an enormous, international level of debt ever been repaid in full or even by half?

The IMF is clearly warning that the debt problem is unprecedented and implying that the debt cannot and will not be repaid in full.

The IMF is clearly warning that if you dare to continue holding your wealth in the form of paper debt instruments, you will be increasingly likely to suffer a considerable loss.

“Most advanced states wrote off debt in the 1930s, though in different ways. First World War loans from the US were forgiven when the Hoover Moratorium expired in 1934, giving debt relief worth 24% of GDP to France, 22% to Britain and 19% to Italy.

“This occurred as part of a bigger shake-up following the collapse of the war reparations regime on Germany under the Versailles Treaty. The US itself imposed haircuts on its own creditors worth 16% of GDP in April 1933 when it abandoned the Gold Standard.”

Thus, 80 years ago, several western governments had gone so deeply into debt that they couldn’t pay, didn’t pay, and therefore wrote off debts equal to 16% to 24% of their national GDPs. By means of this theft, creditors were robbed and governments were strengthened and enlarged.

Governments have agreed to default on massive debts in the past. There’s no reason to suppose they won’t do it again.

“Financial repression can take many forms, including capital controls, interest rate caps or the force-feeding of government debt to captive pension funds and insurance companies. Some of these methods are already in use but not yet on the scale seen in the late 1940s and early 1950s as countries resorted to every trick to tackle their war debts.

“The policy is essentially a confiscation of savings, partly achieved by pushing up inflation while rigging the system to stop markets taking evasive action. The UK and the US ran negative real interest rates of -2% to -4% for several years after the Second World War. Real rates in Italy and Australia were -5%.

“The weaker eurozone states are particularly vulnerable to default because they no longer have their own sovereign currencies, putting them in the same position as emerging countries that borrowed in dollars in the 1980s and 1990s. Even so, nations [actually, “governments”]have defaulted through history even when they borrow in their own currency.”

Despite government sophistry to the contrary, a fundamental truth remains: What can’t be paid, won’t be paid. Sooner or later, those of you who’ve loaned your wealth to the government in return for mere pieces of paper (promises to pay) are going to lose most of your assets.

Those of you who’ve saved you wealth in the form of gold should at least preserve and will probably increase the value of your assets whenever the day finally arrives when governmental debtors finally admit they’re bankrupt.

74 responses to “Savings Tax Coming”

BBC reports: “The IMF estimates that only Australia and China of the world’s 12 largest economies will move into surplus by 2018, while Germany will increase its surplus further.”

Investors looking to make $$$ take note. The debt instruments of the above-mentioned countries – Australia, China, Germany – are likely to experience an epic flight-to-quality boom if and when the debt instruments of the other large economies default.

As I understand what makes anything liable to taxation, it’s possession conditioned on statutory ‘protection’.

So, what ‘statutory protection’ exists in banknote defined or composed ‘savings’? To begin with, it’s relatively worthless stamps, digits or book notations made ‘legal tender’. Moreover, it is voluntarily defined as mercurially ‘valued’ by ‘dollars’. Given that ‘dollar’ is merely a Word Constitutionally ascribed exclusive ‘Intellectual Property’ to government, its true comprehension is as an intangible ‘Government Security’. From that realization, it’s no mystery that such ‘savings’ is Lawfully liable to taxation. The possessor is, after all, ‘benefited’ holding purely ephemeral things of government’s confabulation.

In fact, anything held as ‘valued’ in and by ‘dollars’, is thus liable to tax. On the other hand, were such holding valued purely, strictly and exclusively in a weight of some metal, no nexus to liability can be drawn.

I totally agree with you that “holding” a metal or substance or commodity would not be subject to a saving tax, if it is not documented or known by a taxing authority.

But, once it is placed into commerce by transaction, then the taxing authorities by statue subject such former holdings to taxation. Even bartered items are subject to sale and income taxation. Further, in my state (Ga) by statue, commercial enterprises are subject to added value (ad valorem) taxation on a ALL property holdings of any commodity and/or inventory, and this would include any metal holdings at a certain taxing time (end of business year).

And any such holdings are, by statue, subjected to federal and state capital gains, if known or documented.

Yartap, your qualifier “if it is not documented or known by a taxing authority’, is conditional on nexus.

If I advertise on the front page of the New York Times, the sale of a thousand pairs of pants … priced by … a thousand shirts; the notoriety of the exchange doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a pure barter. Thus it is not remotely possible to Lawfully define as a taxable event. Moreover, it’s impossible of ‘profit’ or ‘loss’ calculation on such basis, as the structure equates both sides to the other.

To say that “enterprises are subject to added value (ad valorem) taxation on a ALL property” is wholly dependent upon what … ‘Property’ is. At Law, Property is the collection of rights and authorities attending a thing. So, exactly what ‘Property’ is liable under that statute? Also, since Private Property is a Reserved Natural Right, it can’t be taxed. viz …

In due respect, all the contentions you’d raised above, are wholly conditioned on activities ‘valued’ in and conducted through statutory ‘dollars’ by entities also contrived under statute. Thus, are entirely fictions of government’s construction.

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any [government] law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” –Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54 (1795)

Yartap

January 14, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Greetings, Pat,

I concur with most of your thoughts.

But, if you openly barter and it is noted by a taxing authority, by an adhesion contract with the Social Security Adm. and with government’s assumption that you are a person (fiction) or incorporated fiction, then the person must file a Form 1099 MISC noting the transaction and a “barter exchange” must withhold from transactions and send out Form 1099-B to customers.

By law, all things that can be “valued” (in any medium) are subject to taxation.

As far as Miller vs. US, most commerce is not a crime; but with that said, governments have not stopped at taxing our rights.

Yartap, it’s an accurate summation that “contract with the Social Security Adm. and with government’s assumption that you are a person (fiction) or incorporated fiction, then the person must file”, is confirmed by …

“Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal liability.” United States v. William M. Slater, (D. Delaware), 545 F. Supp 179, 182 (1982), and by …

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

These three corresponding observations serve to further prove my main contention that where nexus with government is eliminated from people’s transactions, liability evaporates.

In both cases of savings and exchanges, it’s one’s use of (or even mere claim to) statutory ‘benefit’ which formulates government’s authorization by the ‘beneficiary’ to proceed as a third party intervenor on constructive invitation.

Yartap

January 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Greetings, Pat,

I concur. Yartap.

J.M.

January 22, 2014 at 10:35 PM

Shalom, dear one,
Martens posted this on another thread. I like it.> Andrew Jackson in 1811: “If Congress has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”

Pat Fields,
dejure, has some “court money quotes” on the Traffic Ticket thread. At this time, it is the last comment on that thread. As I was reading dejure’s message I saw some “things” that prompted me to send you this message. Check it out. dejure was once a lawyer. From his messages, he was one of the good ones. A man of integrity. At least I think so. I wish I could think of a better way to describe dejure other than to say he is a sorely needed soul for this blog. He has “inside knowledge.” I consider him a friend.

J.M. … “dejure, has some “court money quotes” on the Traffic Ticket thread.”

J.M., I looked for a ‘Traffic Ticket’ thread under the ‘Traffic Law’ category at the right, but found no entries by a member ‘De Jure’ at all. Can you pull up the entry you’re referencing and cut-paste the link?

Having corrected my mistake (de jure for dejure) and re-running my search, I found only Washington State rules and regulations on matters unrelated to the differentiation between banknotes and money. If I missed something again … can you pull that link?

J.M.

January 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Pat Fields, the following is PART of what, dejure, a poster on this blog posted. TECHNICALLY, it is on the “Notice of Inquiry traffic tickets THREAD 4 or 5 threads AFTER this one
What Is Money?
1. A promissory note is a written promise by one person to pay to another or to bearer a fixed sum of money. See: Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill 57; 107 NE 826; Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass 113.
2. As a decree by a court of the U.S. for the payment of money can be made only for the payment of so many dollars of some specie of money that is made lawful money by a statute of the U.S., it follows that a recovery upon such a promissory note or contract must be for some dollars in gold and silver coins. See: The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben. 144, 8 Fed. Cases 4,281; Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869), 3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed. Cases 4,928.
3. The general rule is that a final judgment for money must specify the amount awarded. See: U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356 US 227; 45 Am Jur 2d 81.
4. An act by the legislature of Alabama, September 30, 1920, page 36, providing when a check is presented or forwarded to the payee bank for payment, it may at its option pay or remit the same in money or in exchange drawn on its reserves. However, it is unconstitutional and void as an attempt by the state to make a class of debts payable at the option of the debtor in something other than gold and silver coin. See: Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga. (1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 L Ed 427.
What your government thinks about using gold and silver as money.
_______________
Federal statutes indicate that taxes assessed or levied in anything other than legal tender are unlawful, to wit:
Title 31, United States Code, Section 3124 states in part:
Section 3124. Exemption from taxation
(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax. …
Title 18, United States Code, Section 8 states:
Section 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined
The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued. (Emphasis Added)
1792 Mint and Coinage Act which has NEVER been repealed.
____________________
Lawful money of the United States is Gold or Silver Coin. 12 USC 152 says the LAWFUL money of the United States is gold and silver coin. 31 USC 371 says the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars. According to the Bland-Allison Act of 1878, the Coinage Act of 1837, the Coinage Act of 1834, and the Coinage Act of 1792, a “dollar” is at least 371.25 grains or point seven seven eight (.778) ounces of silver, and it STILL is.
__________________________________
DEBTS ARE NOT A LEGAL TENDER AS STATED BY NO NOTHING ROB NOBODY. See Dennis v. Moses, supra.
______________________________________
In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words “payment” and “discharge”: “There is a distinction between a `debt discharged’ and a `debt paid.’ When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment.”
__________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES for SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM ON MONEY
United States Constitution, Article 6……………………………….1
Cook v. Moffat & Curtis, 5 HOW (46US) 295, 12 L Ed 159………………..1
People ex rel Happell v. Sischo, 23 Cal 2d 478, 144 Pac 2d 785…………1
In re Lindquist’s Estate, 25 Cal 2d 697, 154 Pac 2d 879, rev’g (Call App),
144 Pac 2d 438…………………………………………….1
Ritchie v. Johnson, 158 Kan 103, l44 Pac 2d 925………………………1
People ex rel Woll v. Graber, 394 Ill 362, 68 NE 2d 750……………….1
Walz v. Lavelle, (Ohio St.), 70 NE 2d 750……………………………1
Norris v. Baltimore, 192 A 531……………………………………..1
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn 147, 65 NW 262, 30 LRS 630, 56 Am St 459………1
Lindberg v. Johnson, 93 Minn 267, 101 NW 74……………………….1
Hepburn v. Griswald, 8 Wall 611,613, 615, 616, 634..1,5,9,15,27,30,32,33,38
Thayer v. Hedges, 22 Ind 296, 300………………………………1,2,9
Hamilton, #78, Federalist, p. 467…………………………………..2 Justice Green, In re Dorsey, 7 Porter (Ala) 293, 377, 378 (1838)……….2
16 Am Jur 2d Section 226…………………………………………..2
16 Am Jur 2d Section 256…………………………………………2,3
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr 137, L Ed 60 (1803)…………………………3
Ex Parte Siebold, 100 US 371, L Ed 717………………………………3
Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 US 197, 48 L Ed 679, 24 SCR 436……3
In re Opinions of the Justices, 226 Ala 565, 148 So 107……………….3
16 Am Jur 2d Section 257…………………………………………3,4
Summer v. Beeler, 50 Ind 341……………………………………….4
Kelly v. Bemis, 70 Mass 83…………………………………………4
Titus v. Poland Coal Co., 275 Pa 431, 119 A 540………………………4
Nass v. Maxwell (Tex Civ App) 32 SW 561……………………….4
Flemming v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., (CA 4 SC), 239 F 2d 277….4
Board of Highway Corn’rs v. Bloomington, 253 Ill 164, 97 NE 280………..4
Fisher v. McGirr, 67 Mass 1……………………………………….4
Saratoga State Waters Corp. v. Pratt, 227 NY 429, 125 NE 834…………..4
16 Am Jur 2d Section 178…………………………………………..4
State ex rel Nuveen v. Greer, 88 Fla 249, 102 So 739, 37 ALR 1298………4
United States Constitution, Article 5……………………………….4
United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 8 & 10………………..4
United States Constitution, 9th & 10th Amendments………………….5
2 Story on the Constitution, 142, Sec. 1253…………………………5
McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 421…………………………………5
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46, (1907)……………………………..5,6
Ogden v. Sanders, 12 Wheat 212, 288, 334…………………………6,11b
Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429, 558……………….6,7
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 95………………………………….6,7
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat 122, 206…………………………..7
Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution, 2 Vol 134, 137…7
Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall (78US) 493, 504…………………………….7
4 Webster’s Works, 271…………………………………………….8
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421, 463-465, 4 S Ct 122, 28 L Ed 204
…………………………………8,9,17,18,23,24,28,29,33,34,36,38
Mr. Webster, 1830………………………………………………9,10
Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters 408, 433,434…………………10,11,44,45,46
Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall 71 (1868)………………………..11,11a
City of Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutcher 398 (1857)……………………….11
Perry v. Washburn, 20 California 350……………………………….11
1 Parsons on Contracts, 7………………………………………..11a
Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 US 701, 706, 707………….11a
Title 31 USC Section 392……………………………………….12,45
Title 31 USC Section 311……………………………………….12,13
Title 31 USC Section 371………………………………………….13
People v. Penn (1930), 340 Ill 535, 173 NE 86…………………….13
Webber v. American Union Bank (1926), 128 Misc 123, 217 NYS 833, rev’d on
other grounds, 221 App Div 94, 222 NYS 359…………….13
Legal Tender Cases (1871), 79 US 457, 20 L Ed 287……………………13
– ii –
Title 31 USC Section 314……………………………………………13
Title 31 USC Section 821………………………………………13,14,37
Title 31 CFR Part 55, 1981 Code of Federal Regulations………………14,37
United States Coinage Acts, 1792 – 1900……………………………14
Bland Allison Act of February 28, 1878, 20 Statutes 25…………………14
Bank Holding Company Act, PL 91-607, United States Code, Congressional and
Administrative News, Vol 3, P. 5536, 5545……………………….14
54 Am Jur 2d Money Sections 1,4,6,11,12,14,15,17,18…………15,16,17,18,36
Paul v. Ball, 31Tex 10…………………………………………..15,36
Kennedy v. Briere, 45 Tex 305……………………………………15,36
Nortz v. United States, 294 US 317, 79 L Ed 907, 55 S Ct 428,95 ALR 1346.15
United States v. Van Auken, 96 US 366, 24 L Ed 852………………….15,16
Devenney v. Devenney, 74 Ohio St 96, 77 NE 688…………………..16
36 ALR 1358……………………………………………………….16
Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 US 291, 40 L Ed 973, 16 S Ct 820…………..16
Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis 551, 3 NW 357………………..16,35
Howe v. Hartness, 11 Ohio St 449…………………………………..16
Westfall v. Braley, 10 Ohio St 188…………………………………..16
United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment………………………17
Norman v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 265 NY 37, 191 NE 726, 92 ALR 1523, aff’d
294 US 240, 79 L Ed 885, 55 S Ct 407, 95 ALR 1352……………17
Title 31 USC Section 731……………………………………………17
PL 95-147, Section 4(c), 91 Stat. 1229……………………………….17
United States v. Ballard, 14 Wall (US) 457, 20 L Ed 845………………..18
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall 533, 19 L Ed 482…………………….18
Title 31 USC Section 731……………………………………………18
Title 31 USC Section 152…………………………………………19,36
Pl Exh A, p. 16……………………………………………………19
Black’s Law Dictionary: Definition of a “Note”……………………..19
Title 12 USC Section 411…………………………………………19,20
HJR 192, June 5, 1933………………………………………………20
Title 31 USC Sections 443, 463, & 408a……………………………….21
Title 31 USC Section 315b…………………………………………..22
PL 93-374, August 14, 1974………………………………………….22
Milam v. United States, 524 F 2d 629 (1974)…………………………23
Fulton Bank v. Phoenix Bank, 1 Hall (NY) 577………………………….24
Lowvy v. McGhee, 16 Tenn 242 (1835)………………………………….24
Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall 447, 19 L Ed 207……………………………….24
Ontario Bank v. Lighbody, 3 Wend 101……………………………24,25,35
Johnson v. State, 167 Ala 82………………………………………..25
Perry v. United States, 204 US 330, 79 L Ed 917………………….25,26,37
Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700, 25 L Ed 496……………………….26
United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 51 Pet 377, 10 LEd 774…………26
3 Hamilton’s Works 518……………………………………………..26
United States Constitution, 4th & 5th Amendments………………………27
Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall 552, 353, 361, 562………………………..27,28,38
Bank of New York v. New York County, 7 Wall 26……………………..28,37
Don E. Williams Co. v. CIR, 97 S Ct 850, 51 L Ed 2d (1977)…………..28,29
Hart v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 54 F 2d 846, 332 (1932)……….29
Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 12 TC 524 (1949); Rev Rul 54-465,
1954-2 Cum Bull 93………………………………………….29
Eckert v. Burnet, 283 US 140, 51 S Ct 373, 75 L Ed 911 (1931)…………..29
Helvering v. Price, 309 US 409, 60 S Ct 673, 84 L Ed 836 (194O)…………29
Petty v. Commissioner, 40 TC 521, 524 (1963)………………………….29
Guren v. Commissioner, 66 TC 118 (1976)………………………………29
Baltimore Dairy Lunch, Inc. v. United States, 231 F 2d 870, 875 (CA8 1956).29
Vaughn & Telegraph, 14 Wall 258, 267, 268…………………………30,31
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England by Blackstone,
1 Blackstone, Sec. 387, 389, 391…………………………..31,32
14 Geo. III c 42…………………………………………………..31
3 Story 16, 18…………………………………………………….32
Pol.Economy p. 222………………………………………………..32
– iii –
2 Mill’s Pol. Economy p. 19…………………………………………32
18 Ind 471………………………………………………………..32
3 Webster”s Works, 41………………………………………………34
United States Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat 333…………..34
Miller v. Race, 1 Burrow 452…………………………………..34
Young v. Scott, 5 Ala 475…………………………………………..35
Carlisle v. Davis, 7 Ala 42…………………………………………35
Flemming v. Nall,, 1 Tex 246………………………………………..35
Pierson v. Wallace, 7 Ark 282………………………………35,36
Irvine v. Laury, 14 Pet 293…………………………………………35
Miller v. Austin, 13 How 218,228…………………………………….35
Lieber v. Goodrich, 5 Cw 187……………………………………..35,36
General Service Administration, Form T-588-R (12-72)…………………..35
15 Am & Eng Enc of Law 701………………………………………….36
Cook v. State, 130 Ark 95…………………………………………..36
103 US 792………………………………………………………..36
25 Ark 215………………………………………………………..36
83 Ala 51…………………………………………………………36
23 Ind 21…………………………………………………………36
35 Ill 58…………………………………………………………36
8 Minn 324………………………………………………………..36
27 Mich 191……………………………………………………….36
Serbian & Brazilian Bond Cases, P.C.I.J. Series A, Nos. 20-21, pp 32-34,
109,110………………………………………………….37
Gregory v. Morris, 96 US 619 , 24 L Ed 740……………………………37
Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 2 L Ed 162…………………………….37
60 Am Jur 2d Payment Sections 28, 52, 62, 64……………………….41,42
The Emily Souder, 17 Wall 666, 21 LEd 683……………………41
Duncan v. Kimball, 3 Wall 37, 18 L Ed 50……………………………..41
Keller v. North American L. Ins. Co., 301 Ill 198, 133 NE 726…………..41
Emerson v. Providence Hat Mfg. Co., 12 Mass 237………………41
Wright v. First Crockery Ware Co., 1 NH 281………………….41
Parker v. Cousins, 2 Gratt (Va) 372…………………………41
11 Am Jur 2d Bills & Notes Sections 216 & 217………………………42,43
Harrshbarger v. Eby, 28 Idaho 753, 156 P 619…………………43,46
Hannon v. Fink, 66 Okla 115, 167 P 1152…………………..43,46
Ballard v. Burton, 64 Vt 387, 24 A 769……………………………….43
Good v. Dyer, 137 Va 114, 119 SE 277…………………………………43
17 Am Jur 2d Contracts Section 85……………………………………43
Anheuser Bush Brewing Ass’n v. Mason, 44 Minn 318, 46 NW 558……………43
17 Am Jur 2d Contracts Section 86……………………………………43
Bailey v. Gentry, 1 Mo 164 (1822)………………………………..46
Lorber v. Tooley, 47 Cal App 2d 47, 117 P 2d 421………………………46
Wolford V. Powers, 85 Ind 294……………………………………..46
Rauschenbach v. McDaniel’s Estate, 122 W Va 632, 11 SE 2d 852…………..46
1 Am Jur 2d Actions Section 51………………………………………47
United States Constitution, 6th & 7th Amendments…………………..48
An Essay on the Trial by Jury, By Lysander Spooner…………………….48
Chief Justice John Jay, State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1……..48,49
Twelve for the People, by Claire Kelly & W. Vaughn Ellsworth, includes
Excerpts from the Trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase………49
Springfield Bank v. Merrick et al., 14 Mass 322……………………….45
Hunt v. Knickerbocker, 5 Johns 327 ………………………………….45
______________________
Paper Money Paying Taxes
US v Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1911)
Neither Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 19 L. ed. 101, nor Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472 , 26 L. ed. 197, relied upon by the defendants, involved the question. In the former case it was held that the acts of Congress of 1862 and 1863 [12 Stat. at L. 345, 532, 709, chaps. 33, 142, 73], making United States notes a legal tender for debts, had no reference to taxes imposed by state authority. The legal tender acts expressly provided that the notes should be receivable for national taxes, and the context forbade the conclusion that Congress intended to include state taxes under the term ‘debts,’ and there was hence no conflict with the statute of Oregon which required the taxes due the state to be collected in coin.
In Meriwether v. Garrett, supra, it was held that taxes levied before the repeal of the charter of a municipality, other than such as were levied in obedience to the special requiremant of contracts entered into under the authority of law, and such as were levied under judicial direction for the payments of juegments recovered against the city, could not be collected through the instrumentality of a court of chancery at the instance of the city’s creditors. Such taxes could be collected only under authority from the legislature.
A tax may or may not be a ‘debt’ under a particular statute, according to the sense in which the word is found to be used. But whether the government may recover a personal judgment for a tax depends upon the existence of the duty to pay, for the enforcement of which another remedy has not been made exclusive. Whether an action of debt is maintainable depends not upon the question who is the plaintiff or in what manner the obligation was [219 U.S. 250, 263] incurred, but it lies whenever there is due a sum either certain or readily reduced to certainty. Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. p. 542, 20 L. ed. 493.
Carter and Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140 (1842):
“The note does not stipulate for the payment of a debt in Bank bills, but is
an undertaking to pay ‘current money of the State of Alabama.’ It is true that an
infinite variety of commodities have been used as money in different periods and
countries. . . and in common parlance all these different representations of the
common standard of value have been designated as money. But the notes of the
Bank which are not redeemable in coin, on demand, cannot, with any propriety be
regarded as such; in fact, the best Bank paper passes as money by consent only,
and it cannot be otherwise so long as the inhibition of the Federal Constitution
____________________________________
B. ARKANSAS
Dillard v. Evans, 4 Ark. 175 (1842):
“Bank issues are not, in the constitutional sense of the term, lawful money of
legal coin. Gold and silver alone are a legal tender of debts, and the only true
constitutional currency know to the laws.”
Foquet v. Hoadley, 3 Conn. 534 (1821):
“A promissory note, payable in money, cannot be discharged, by the act of the
debtor, without the co-operation of the creditor, unless in gold and silver coin.
Const. U.S. art. 1. sec. 10. Bank notes are not a legal tender, if the
creditor objects to receive them.”
McChord v. Ford, 19 Ky 167 (1826):
“but as bank notes are not money, it also follows that this
note can not intend bank notes, but gold or silver.”
Sinclair v. Piercy, 28 Ky 63 (1830):
“The result from an examination of all the cases is that money in its strict
legal sense, means gold or silver coin, and that an obligation for money alone
can not be satisfied with any thing else.”
Pryor v. Commonwealth, 32 Ky 298 (1834):
“Yet, that its true technical import is lawful money of the United States, in
other words, gold or silver coin, and when used in judicial proceedings it is
always to be taken in this technical sense.”
Gray v. Donahoe, 4 Watts (Pa.) 400 (1835):
“No principle is better established or more necessary to be maintained than
that bank notes are not `money’ in the legal sense of the word . . . Coins struck
at the Mint or authorized by act of Congress are alone lawful money. They possess
a fixed and permanent value or, at least, as nearly so as human affairs admit of.
Bank notes are merely promissory notes for the payment of money – ordinarily, it
is true, convertible into coin on demand at the bank where they are issued.”
What is Money – Court Definitions
“Downloads” of “What is Money” are at the bottom of the page
A promissory note is a written promise by one person to pay to another
or to bearer a fixed sum of money. See: Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill 57;
107 NE 826; Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass
113.
As a decree by a court of the U.S. for the payment of money can be made
only for the payment of so many dollars of some specie of money that is
made lawful money by a statute of the U.S., it follows that a recovery
upon such a promissory note or contract must be for some dollars in gold
and silver coins. See: The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben. 144, 8 Fed.
Cases 4,281; Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869), 3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed.
Cases 4,928.
The general rule is that a final judgment for money must specify the
amount awarded. See: U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356 US 227; 45 Am
Jur 2d 81.
An act by the legislature of Alabama, September 30, 1920, page 36,
providing when a check is presented or forwarded to the payee bank for
payment, it may at its option pay or remit the same in money or in
exchange drawn on its reserves. However, it is unconstitutional and void
as an attempt by the state to make a class of debts payable at the
option of the debtor in something other than gold and silver coin. See:
Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga.
(1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 L Ed 427.
As bills of credit were entirely abolished, the paper money of the state
banks was the only currency or circulating medium to which the
prohibition (Art. 1, Sec. 10) could have had any application. See:
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 US 533. (What is checkbook credit, lines of
credit, etc.?)
Congress was vested with the power to borrow money and that the promise
of payment having been given, no authority remained to alter or destroy
the original promise. See: Perry v. U.S., 294 US 330.
The states are not forbidden to issue coupons receivable for taxes, nor
execute instruments binding themselves to pay money at a future day for
services rendered or money borrowed. See: Poindexter v. Greenbow, 114 US
70; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 US 567; Houston & Texas Central R.R. v.
Texas, 177 US 66. (If this is true, then why do states borrow from
banks? States issue bonds and the banks buy the bonds by creating a new
demand deposit and nothing is deposited. When it comes time to pay the
bonds, the state acts as a collection agent for the bank.)
Neither the president nor the cashier of a bank has a right to accept
anything but money in payment of an obligation due the bank. See:
Aliquippa National Bank v. Harvey, 12 A.2d 409, 340 Pa 223; First
National Bank of Mt. Holley Springs v. Cumbler, 21 A.2d 120; Re Bowen 46
F. Supp 631, 16 A.2d 409.
“Some years ago a new type of installment credit appeared in banks
throughout the country. It became known as check credit or revolving
check credit. Basically, it provided that those eligible for such credit
be granted a line of credit in the agreed amount. In order to use that
line, the borrower needed merely to write checks. The checks were
special checks, and were NOT actually checking accounts. The check was
merely the instrument by which the loan account was activated. Usually
it did not go through all the processes that an ORDINARY check does once
it reaches the bank. However, it had the APPEARANCE of an ORDINARY
check, and was so used by the customer and the person to whom he gave
the check.” Source: “The Bankers Handbook” (?edition), page 530. (Does
the bank disclose this information to you? It should be quite important
for you to know that the bank just created a bookkeeping entry to create
the “loan”, and that the checks were not actually checks, but had the
appearance of checks. This is what is known as a common law cheat and
should be in violation of Fair Trade Practices because it gives banks a
much greater advantage in business than you or I, or other businesses.)
See: Title 15, Sec. 1635 of Chap. 41.
Unless there is what the law considers a valuable consideration, it will
not be sufficient to maintain an action. And there is a distinction
between a valuable consideration, other than money, and a money
consideration. While in the “former” case the slightest consideration
will support a promise (consideration other than money) to pay the
largest amount to the full extent of the promise, in the latter the
consideration will support a promise only to the extent of the money
forming the consideration. The law leaves the measure of a valuable
consideration other than money, for a promise to pay, to the parties to
the contract; but money being the standard of value, is not the subject
to be changed by contract, and will support a promise to pay money only
to the extent of the amount of the consideration. See: Sawyer v.
McLouth, 46 Barb 350.
The term “tender” as used in the books, denotes a legal OFFER, one which
one party is under obligation to make and the other bound to accept.
See: Duluth v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229; Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66.
The promissory note, even when payable on demand and fully secured, is
still, as its name implies, only a PROMISE to pay, and does not
represent the paying out or reduction of assets. See: Don E. Williams
Co. v. Commissioner of IRS, 51 L.Ed. 2d 48 (Feb. 22, 1977).
Money does not embrace notes (promises to pay money). See: Lane v.
Railey; U.S. v. Wells; Devenny v. Devenny; State v. Hoke; Hamilton v.
State; etc.. (Since a Federal Reserve Note is not even a note [a promise
to pay], money cannot embrace a Federal Reserve note.)
An agent (clerk) has no implied authority to receive anything else than
MONEY in satisfaction of a debt due his principal. He cannot, therefore,
take payment in a check. See: Hall v. Storrs, 7 Wis. 217; Buckwalter v.
Craig, 55 Mo. 71.
Payment of debts is imperative/axiomatic/essential for the right of
contract/property to exist, for without payment (delivery of money), the
debt still exists. See: Stanek v. White, 215 NW 784.
It is the general rule that a pledger, whose tender (offer) has been
refused, will not be granted affirmative relief of an equitable nature,
unless he has kept the tender good or at least comes before the court in
an attitude of willingness to pay what is due him. See: Norton v.
Baxter, 41 Minn. d 146; Tuthill v. Morris, 81 NY 94.
Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me
410. (Federal Reserve Notes are not money.)
Federal Reserve notes may be refused. See: MacLeod v. Hoover, 105 So
205, 159 La 244.
The only substances ever declared as money within the U.S. were gold and
silver, in coin form, with copper/nickel serving in token capacity only.
See: 12 USCA 152 re. “lawful money” and Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, at
Sections 11, 16, & 20; re. copper/nickel tokens, see Sec. 9, and 31 USCA
460.
A legal tender, when made, must be kept good according to the rules of
the common law. See: William Wolf Co. v. Canadian R.R. Co., 56 Pac. Rep
453.
It has been held that if the instrument recites on its face its
consideration, the consideration must be proved. See: Smith v. Doherty,
60 SW 380, 109 Ky 616.
Where the instrument sued upon is nonnegotiable, plaintiff must prove
its consideration. See: Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Dalton, 167 NY S 332.
A promissory note is defined as an unconditional promise to pay a sum
certain in dollars. See: Regulation A, Sec. 4 (1005) (a) Federal Reserve
Act. (Dollars = money, not Federal Reserve notes.)
Money imports value. See: Neufield v. U.S., 118 F.2d 375. (What value
has a piece of paper with green ink on it, especially when it is
redeemable in no-thing?)
Money has value only by law and not by nature so that a conviction of
those who use it is sufficient to deprive it of its value and of its
purchasing power. See: Incitti v. Ferrante, 175 A 908.
When a contract is agreed to be paid in dollars, a payment in money is
meant and not the transfer of notes. See: Simon v. Douglas, 225 SW 721;
189 Ky 644.
Income must be money or that which is convertible into money. See:
Snyders Estate, 31 A.2d 132, 136; 346 Pa 615. (Is any Federal Reserve
note convertible at par or otherwise, through a bank, for money?)
Monetary value means value calculated on the basis of $1 for an amount
of silver or gold equal to the amount at the time contained in the
standard silver dollar or gold dollar. See: USCA Title 31, Chap. 8, Sec.
448(b) (Gold and silver have a value lies in and of themselves — notes
do not.)
Money is a commodity, having a value of its own. It is a common measure
of value. It has change ability. See: U.S. v. Gellman, D.C. Minn. 44 F.
Supp. 360. (Gold and silver are commodities and have a value in and of
themselves — notes are not commodities and have no value in and of
themselves. Granted they are speculated upon in the money markets but
that does not mean they have a value in and of themselves. Their value
lies in the confidence of the people, not in the thing itself.)
Money is defined as meaning a representative standard or measure of
value. See: Jones v. Overstreet, 4 T.B. Mon. 547.
The courts have found occasion to decide that the pleading did not raise
certain issues such as: want of consideration See: Sopp v. Linfrand, 36
P.2d 794; negotiability Banca Commission Italiana Dr. Genova v. P.
Schlegal Co., 80 P 414; ownership Sheffield v. Hatch, 135 So 165);
payment Minor v. Carpenter, 152 P 737.
Checkbook money is not legal tender. See: Story of Checks, Federal
Reserve Bank of NY, p 20.
Commercial banks are important financial institutions because they can
create money — checkbook money. See: Money’s Economic Balance, Federal
Reserve Bank of NY, P 17 (8th ed., 1979).
A check is defined as a draft or order upon a bank, purporting to be
drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment of a certain sum of money.
See: Federal Reserve Act, Reg. J, Sec. 3 (12). (Money is not notes.)
Nothing contained in this chapter shall impair the redeemability of any
currency of the United States. See: 31 USC 9?6. (If currency has any
redeemability — where?)
Bank notes are promissory notes of a bank, payable to bearer. They are a
good tender unless objected to at the time because not money. See:
Parsons Laws of Business, Page 172. (Anything is acceptable as a tender
unless objected to.)
It cannot be doubted that under the Constitution the power to provide a
circulating of coins is given to Congress. And it is settled by the
uniform practice of the government and repeated decisions, that Congress
may constitutionally authorize the omission of bills of credit. Having
this in the exercise of undisputed constitutional power undertaken to
provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that
Congress may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by
appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of
legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the
imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. See: Veazie
Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall 533, 19 L Ed 48.
“Federal Reserve notes are valueless.” See: Internal Revenue Code at
section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.
Taxes lawfully assessed are collectible by agents in money, and notes
cannot be accepted in payment. See: Town of Frankfort v. Waldo, 128 Me
1. (If notes cannot be accepted, what about checks?)
Securities are defined as notes or evidences of debt. See: Rev. Rule
66-321, CB 1966-2, p 59.
Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me
410.
Only the note which represents money is negotiable. See: Omohumbro v.
Crumm, 18 Gratt 703. (What note represents money? If there is none,
nothing is negotiable.)
A check, to negotiable, must be payable in cash. See: Little v. Bank, 2
Hill 425. (Checks and notes are not cash.)
One of the factors showing that notes are worth their full face value is
“the willingness of the payee to guarantee payment.” See: Volume 10, Law
of Fed. Income Tax, Se. 59.51. (Who will guarantee the face value
payment of a federal Reserve note? You can change notes for notes but
that is not a payment of the note.)
Congress may issue treasury notes, their issue being an exchange of
credit for money or property. See: Metropolitan Bank v. Dyke, 27 NY 400.
A state cannot, by indirect means, or any device, emit bills of credit.
See: Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet 431.
A bill of credit is not a good consideration for a contract. See: Craig
v. Missouri, 4 Pet 431; Bank v. Clark, 4 Mo 59; Linn v. Bank, 5 Ill 87.
A state cannot incorporate individuals and authorize them to coin money.
See: Briscoe v. Bank, 11 Pet 257. (But can the Federal government?)
Tender is an unconditional offer to perform couples with a manifested
ability to carry out the offer and production of the subject matter of
the tender. See: 243 F. Supp 741, 744.
An offer of performance which, if unjustifiably refused, places the
refusing party in default and permits the party making tender to
exercise his remedy for breach of contract. See: 17 P.2d 952, 953.
A check is a written order or request addressed to a bank, by a party
having money in their hands, desiring them to pay, on presentment, to a
person therein named, or bearer, or to such person, or order, a named
sum of money. See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. (No one has money in the
bank to pay any person. Money is not notes or checks.)
A check is an order on a bank, drawn on a deposit of funds, for the
payment of a certain sum of money. See: Norton on Bills and Notes. 53. A
check, to be negotiable, must be payable in money. See: Little v. Bank,
2 Hill (NY) 425. (Notes are not money.)
A check given in exchange for a negotiable instrument is a conditional
payment only unless there is an express agreement to the contrary. See:
Steele v. Vanderslice, 367 p 2d 636.
Promissory note within meaning of V.A.M.S. Sec. 401.001 is a promise to
pay sum certain in money. See: Dillard v. Dillard, 269 SW 2d 481.
A note is an acknowledgment of debt. See: Smith v. Mills, 296 P 2d 481,
49 SE 2d 431; Gales v. Frank, 121 NY S 2d 435. (Do those who possess
notes, possess debt?)
Where note is void ab initio it is nonnegotiable. See: Modern Ind. Bank
v. Taub, 47 A.2d 348. 58. Parties to a negotiable instrument are
generally held to be liable in capacity in which they signed the
instrument and sueable accordingly. See: Reed v. Buck, 370 SW 2d 867.
(Who signs Federal Reserve notes?)
Petition seeking to enforce the terms of a promissory note must allege a
promise to pay made by defendant. See: McGee v. Taylor, 242 SW 2d 621.
(Court cases have often been dismissed because all parties to the action
were not named. Anyone suing a bank should include the Secretary of
Treasury and whoever signed the note. However, Federal Reserve notes are
not really promissory notes and there is no promise to pay thereon.)
The essence of a check is that the instrument is an unconditional order
in writing to pay a sum certain in money. See: State v. DeNicola, 126 NE
2d 62; Aetna Oil Co. v. Glenn, 53 F. Supp. 961.
A check is not money. See: School Dist. v. U.S. National Bank, 211 P 2d
723. (Notes are not money.)
A bank note is a promissory note of a bank, payable on demand, and
intended to circulate as money. See: Commissioner v. Gallagher, 126 Mass
54. (Payable in what?)
Nothing is consideration for a note that is not regarded as such by both
parties. See: Standly v. Western Mutual Life Ins., 95 Ind 254; Sterns v.
Franks, 96 P.2d 802; 35 Cal App. 2d 676.
Instruments not bearing terms of negotiability such as words “or order”
or “or bearer” were not negotiable. See: Inst. Penn. v. Utne, D.C. Minn
(1962), 360 SW 2d 823. (Today’s Federal Reserve notes contain no such
words and are not negotiable except for more notes.)
A note is an instrument which, by its terms, purports to evidence
unconditional promise to pay. See: McCullough Tool v. C.I.R., (1963),
318 F.2d 790.
Note which was not payable to order or bearer was not negotiable. See:
Strom v. Dickson, (1962), 361 SW 2d 823.
A holder of a note is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course
and is entitled to sue on the note. See: Waterman v. Sullivan, 81964,
397 P 2d 739. (But we do not have valid notes.)
In order for a note to be negotiable it must contain both an
unconditional promise to pay and a fixed or determined date of payment.
See: Bank of Kimbol v. Rostek, (1967), 423 P 2d 579.
A promissory cannot be received as cash. Nothing shall be deemed capital
paid in except money bona fide. Under no circumstances shall a
promissory note, check, or other obligation be treated as actual paid in
capital. See: Pac. Trust v. Dorsey, 72 Cal 55.
It will not do to say that their interest in the welfare of the state
and their responsibility to their constituents will be sufficient
safeguards against corrupt legislation of this or any other character.
Suppose the powerful mining and other corporations doing business in
this territory were to concentrate a heavy and combined moneyed
influence upon a corrupt and venal legislature — an institution not
entirely unknown to the history of our republic — and should procure
the passage of an act making their certificates of stock lawful money in
the payment of taxes, I think it would be difficult to find a lawyer who
valued his legal opinion as worth anything, who would be willing to
defend such an act as valid. See: Haas v. Misner, 1 Idaho 170, 178.
Act of Dec. 23, 1923, Sec. 317: Upon the deposit with the treasurer of
the U.S. of bonds so purchased, and Federal Reserve bank making such
deposit, shall be entitled to receive from the comptroller of the
currency circulating notes in blank. Such notes shall be the obligations
of the Federal Reserve Bank. They shall be issued and redeemed under the
same terms as national bank notes. (In the beginning the Federal Reserve
banks bought the bonds with money; they issued notes in the amount of
bonds purchased. The Federal Reserve banks bought bonds and deposited
them with the treasurer. The U.S. Treasurer had possession of both the
bond and the money. The Federal Reserve banks issued the notes. The
notes were to be obligations of the Federal Reserve banks. The Federal
Reserve banks loaned the notes to the government, and in this way the
Federal Reserve banks got back all the money they paid for the bonds;
but also, in the beginning, the notes were to be used only for settling
accounts between the 12 Federal Reserve banks, and for no other purpose
were they authorized.) See: 12 USC 411.
The case of a State which pays off its own debts with paper money, no
more resembles this than do those to which we have already adverted. The
courts have no jurisdiction over the contract. They cannot enforce it,
nor judge of its violation. Let it be that the act discharging the debt
is a mere nullity, and that it is still due. Yet the federal courts have
no cognizance of the case. But suppose a State to institute proceedings
against an individual, which depended on the validity of an act emitting
bills of credit; suppose a State to prosecute one of its citizens for
refusing paper money, who should plead the constitution in bar of such
prosecution. If his plea should be overruled, and judgment rendered
against him, his case would resemble this; and, unless the jurisdiction
of this court might be exercised over it, the constitution would be
violated, and the injured party be unable to bring his case before that
tribunal to which the people of the United States have assigned all such
cases. See: Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wall 100.
According to State v. Thomas money was property but Federal Reserve
notes are only a claim on property and, Federal Reserve notes shall be
redeemed in lawful money–not legal tender. See: State v. Thomas, 12 USC
411.
Make the bank identify the thing loaned. Certainly if the bank claims to
have loaned something they can identify it, and according to the law of
tender, the tender must be kept good. If a judgement could be settled
with a tender, then the litigation would never end. A Federal Reserve
note being a chose in action, something to be sued upon (UCC), but then,
under state law, there can be no “holder in due course” on an incomplete
instrument, and a fed note is an incomplete instrument as it will not
pay to bearer. This amounts to a common law cheat, which is the
obtaining of money or property by means of false tokens, symbols, or
device; this being the definition of a cheat or cheating at common law.
See: State v. Renick, 33 Or 584, 56 p 275, 44 L R A 266, 72 Am. St. Rep.
758.
What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are
incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis
of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious. In a word, they are
determined to annihilate all debts, public and private, and have
agrarian laws, which are easily effected by means of unfunded paper
money which shall be a tender in all cases. See: Gen. Knox.
In order to constitute a loan, there must be a contract whereby one
party transfers to the other a sum of money. See: U.S. v. Neifert White,
247 F.Supp. 878.
A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt
by another of a sum of money. See: Kirkland v. Bailes, 155 S.E. 2d 701.
(Yet the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says in Modern Money Mechanics
that banks make loans by promising to lend.) (However a promise to lend
cannot be enforced. In order to constitute a loan, money must be loaned,
but banks make loans by promising to lend, and promises to lend cannot
be enforced.) 5 MRSA.
The thing given or taken in exchange must be specific and so
distinguishable from things of like kind as to be clearly known and
identifiable. See: Preston v. Keene, 14 Pet 133.
The extension of credit is not the giving of value. See: UCC 3-303:0;
Atkinson v. Englewood State Bank, 141 Colo 436.
A loan is the creation of debt by the lenders agreement to pay MONEY TO
THE DEBTOR. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code 9-A, Sec. 1.301 (23)(a)(1).
Banks extend credit, not money. See: National Bank v. Atkinson, 55 Fed.
Rep. 571.
Fair and reasonable value means the best price to be at once in money —
cash being the antonym of credit– cash value importing value in money.
See: State v. Woodward, 93 SO 826, 208 Ala 31.
A note given to town treasurer in payment of a tax, being illegal as
against public policy, does not discharge the tax. See: Embden v.
Bunker, 86 Me 313.
There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When
discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a
legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the
original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be
transferred even though the transferee takes it subject to the
disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something
which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay so as to make an
otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation makes it the subject of
transfer by assignment. See: Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N.H. 361, 66 Am. D.
729; William R. Stank v. M.W. White, 172 Minn. Reports 390.
Although it apparently was still necessary in the 1790′s to allege
fictionally that such bills were drawn “according to the custom of
merchants,’ Butter v. Ouchterloney, S SC, 3-68) all agreed that an
instrument executed by a non merchant was negotiable if it contained
words of negotiability customarily used by merchants, such as “or order”
in an appropriate place. See: Whitney v. Whitney, Quincy 117 (1765);
Laws and Usages Respecting Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, by
John Tisdall.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), “a debt can only be paid
with money or goods.” The UCC, of course, is state law which supersedes
federal law. “The Federal Government has no power to impose on any state
officer any duty whatsoever, and compel him to perform it.” See:
Commonwealth v. Dennison, 24 How. 66.
A judgement for money must specify the amount in words or figures with
some mark or character to indicate what they represent. Re See: Boyd
(D.C. Or) Fed. Case No. l1746 (see also United Glover Co. v. Harvey
Steel, 3 F.2d 634.) (Figures in the absence of dollar marks should be
void as there would be no figure or mark to indicate what the numbers
represent.)
In the absence of any provision of law precluding payment in a
particular kind of coin specifically designated in a contract, the
general rule is that such contract may be enforced by the rendition of a
judgement for the particular kind of coin designated. See: The Emily
Sounder, 17 Wall 666; Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall 687; Land v.
Gluckauf, 28 Cal 288; Gilman v. Douglas County, 6 Nev. 27.
The support of the general rule by the courts has been based not on the
difference in the kinds of money, but on the ground that the party
specifically contracted for payment in a specific thing. See: Thompson
v. Butler, 95 US 694.
The issuance of Federal Reserve notes is not an attempt by the
government to coin money, it is a pledge of the government to pay
dollars. See: U.S. v. Ballard, 14 Wall 457.
No payment is effectuated by the delivery of a bill or note which is
unenforceable. See: Lee v. Fontaine, 10 Ala 755. (A note is
unenforceable unless it is negotiable.)
Giving of a note does not constitute payment. See: Echart v.
Commissioners C.C.A., 42 F.2d 158, 283 US 140; Noland v. Maryland
Casualty Co., D.C. Md. 38 F.Supp. 497. (See #70)
When a decree provides for the payment of money, that term imports
constitutional currency. See: Shackleford v. Cunningham, 41 Ala 203;
West Oliver Co. v. Bail & Crommelin, 12 Ala 340. (Constitutional money
is not notes or checks.)
For judgements payable in US funds. See: Shaw Savill Albion & Co. v. The
Frederickburg, C.A. N.Y. 189 F.2d 952.
Definition of funds: Money in hand; assets; cash; money available. See:
Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer, 28 Ill 335; U.S. v. Jenks, D.C. Pa. 264 F
697; Johnson v. State, 37 Ga. App 129.
Money is property. Federal Reserve notes are liabilities, not assets.
Cash, according to the book. See: “The Federal Reserve Bank; Its
Purposes and Functions,” is coin.
Current money: Whatever is receivable and current by law as money. See:
Henderson v. Farmers Savings Bank, 199 Iowa 496.
The precious metals alone are money, and whatever else is to perform the
functions of money must be their representative and capable of being
turned into them at will. So long as bank paper retains this quality it
is a substitute for money; divested of this, nothing can give it that
character. See: 3 Websters Works 41; Woodruff v. Miss, 162 US Reports
307.
A Note is only promise to pay. See: Fidelity Savings v. Grimes, 131 P 2d
894.
Legal tender notes are not good as lawful money of the U.S.. See: Rains
v. State, 226 S.W. 189.
Checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the
U.S.. See: State v. Nealan, 43 Ore 158.
Where the Fed. Gov. is a party to commercial paper, it is bound by same
rules which govern private persons. See: Continental American Bank v.
U.S., C.C.A. La. (1947) 161 F.2d 93.
The government assumes all responsibilities of private persons when it
issues commercial paper. See: U.S. v. First National Bank, 138 F.2d 681.
The term “dollar” means money since it is the unit of money in this
country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean
promissory notes or bonds or other evidences of debt. See: Devenny v.
Devenny, 74 Ohio St. 96, 76 NE 688.
Federal Reserve Notes are a first and paramount lien on all the assets
of the issuing Federal Reserve bank. See: Moody’s Bank & Financial
Manual, page 2105. (If Federal Reserve notes are a lien on the banks, no
wonder they want to eliminate the use of Federal Reserve notes and deal
only with computer entries.)
Negotiable Instruments Law was designed to cover commercial paper and
U.S. currency. See: LSA-R.S. 17; 1 et seq LSA-C.C. art 2139.
The public’s use of demand deposits as money is not based on
authorization by the Federal Government. Even today, legal tender, the
kind of money in which debts are payable, does not include demand
deposits. See: An Introduction to Money and Banking, by Colin and
Rosemary Campbell, Professors of Economics.
U.S. Currency does not contain all of essence of negotiable instrument
under Louisiana law. U.S. currency is the object for which negotiable
instruments issue. The very first requirement of our negotiable
instrument law is that the instrument be signed by the maker. The
signatures on paper money are made by facsimile stamp put there by
machine. See: Civil Code Art. 2139 La; 120 So. 2d 845.
We are involved in a confidence game; there is nothing to our currency
except the confidence the people have in it. See: Congressman Ron Paul.
Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master
of all commerce and industry. See: President James Garfield.
The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires
against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy,
more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It
denounces as public enemies all who would question its methods or throw
light upon its crimes. See: Abraham Lincoln.
Funny money supply: The Feds can’t count it let alone control it. See:
Barron’s Financial Report, Feb. 3, 1975.
This sound state of the currency will have another most happy effect
upon the laboring man. He will receive his wages in gold and silver; and
this will induce him to lay up, for future use, such portion of them as
he can spare. This he will not do at present, because he knows not
whether the trash which he is now compelled to receive as money will
continue to be of any value a week or a month hereafter. See: James
Buchanan, Jan. 22, 1840.
A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due
course. See: UCC 3-303;1(1). (The bank holds a note but what did the
bank give for the note; what thing of value did they part with?)
With respect to a consumer credit sale, the creditor may not take a
negotiable instrument other than a currently dated check or a draft
payable within seven days. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code, Title 9,
Sec. 3.307.
A promise to pay is not the equivalent of actual payment. See:
Christianson v. Beebe, 91 P 129, 32 Utah 406.
Notes do not operate as payment in the absence of an agreement that they
shall constitute payment. See: Blackshear Manufacturing Co. v. Harrell,
12 S.E. 2d 766.
A court will take judicial notice of the worth of a dollar. See: Read v.
State, 92 NY 321.
Federal Reserve Notes and national bank notes may be used to pay an
obligation evidenced by usual form of promissory note. See: Beery v. Los
Angeles County, (1953), 253 P 2d 1005. (This case was over Wallace
Berry, the movie actor. The notes in question were redeemable in lawful
money and would pay to the bearer on demand.)
Par: When used in connection with currency, treasury notes or bank
bills, par means equal to gold. See: Crim v. Sellars, 37 Ga 324.
Equal to gold and silver. See: Galloway v. Jenkin, 63 NC 147; Harrisburg
Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa 451.
Thus it is laid down by books of authority that if a man draw a bill of
exchange, he is, for the purposes of that bill, a merchant. See: Comyns
Digest; Merchant, A,1. (are we all, than merchants?)
One who is the cause or occasion of a condition by which a loss has been
caused ought to bear it. See: Marion Mortgage Co. v. Grennan, 87 A LR
1492; 106 Fla 913.
One who is not the cause of an occasion should not be made to suffer for
it. See: Marion Mortgage Co v. Brennal, 87 A LR 1492; Buxbaum v.
Assicurazioni v. Winston, Tx Civ. App 137 SW 2d 93.
The simple meaning of money is current coin. See: Salt Lake County v.
Utah Copper Co., CCA Utah, 93 F.2d 127.
Payment is the discharge of an obligation by the actual delivery of
money or its equivalent. See: Chrysler Corp. v. Hanover Ins. Co., C.A.
7, Ind. 350 F.2d 652; 383 US 906.
Money is what is coined or stamped by public authority and has its value
fixed by public authority. See: Paul v. Ball, 31 Tex 10′ Kennedy v.
Briere, 45 Tex 305; Richard v. American Union Bank, 253 NY 166.
The USA has no inland jurisdiction Arndt v. Griggs, 134 US 316 and thus
cannot compel one, upon one’s proper objection, to obtain, use, tender,
nor alienate any private negotiable instruments– not excluding FRAUDS
(Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices), and this was held so by the
state supreme courts, even when federal gold and silver coins were in
existence (see ALZR administrative agency related fines, taxes, bails,
etc. See: Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal 318; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall
71.
Thus, where the judge (sic) chancellor adjudges imprisonment where he
cannot fine, the same operation of law/equity destroys his necessary
“discretion” and without discretion, he ceases to be a judge/chancellor,
and the court CORAM NON JUDICE (no judge in attendance) as in Windsor v.
McVeigh, 93 US 274, where the court is without power or refuses to grant
a hearing; Windsor, Supra. Thus no fine nor imprisonment can be enforced
at all.
“Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just
measure shalt thou have: that they days may be lengthened in the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” See: Deuteronomy 25: 13-15.
From the Constitutional debates on bills of credit contained in Article
1, Section 8 which stated: The legislature of the United States shall
have the power to . . . coin money . . . and emit bills of credit of the
United States. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, by
James Madison, Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, 1966. Mr. G. Morris
moved to strike out and “and emit bills of credit.” If the United States
had credit such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and
useless.MADISON: Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a
tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views.
And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be
best.MORRIS: Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a
responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief.
The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper
emissions be not prohibited.
COL. MASON: Through he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he
could not foresee all emergencies, he was willing to tie the hands of
the legislature. (legislature = Congress)
MERCER: (A friend of paper money) It was impolitic . . . to excite the
oppression of all those who were friends to paper money.
Mr. ELSEWORTH: thought this was a favorable movement to shut and bar
the door against paper money. This mischiefs of the various
experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and
had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By
withholding the power from the new Government more friends of
influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else . . ..
Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power
may do harm, never good.
Mr. WILSON: It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of
the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This
expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and
as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.
Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming
as the mark of the

What a luscious table of legal delicacies ‘dejure’ laid out with THAT, huh J.M.? No wonder it stuck out in your mind. Thanks Loads for the recovery, I’m very grateful.

J.M.

February 6, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Pat Fields
January 26, 2014 at 11:47 PM

@ > What a luscious table of legal delicacies ‘dejure’ laid out with THAT, huh J.M.? No wonder it stuck out in your mind. Thanks Loads for the recovery, I’m very grateful.

Just saw your message, Pat Fields. Per this luscious table, THERE’S MORE !!! But, I guess by now, you already know this. I LOVE dejure!!! I love you too!!! I also love little baby ducks, old pickup trucks, & many more things except I don’t like to use the word, thing in this particular. What is a good word to use in this particular re: what I love? I do love “some” people,& I do love some “things.”

Specifically, Dollars are made of Paper and Green Ink.
T Bills and Treasury Bonds are made of Paper and Blue Ink.

Is there are Shortage of Paper and Ink?

What this 2nd Stage of Paper Bankruptcy is,
(the first stage was Borrowing to finace a Budget)
this 2nd Stage of Paper Bankruptcy is,
to Prevent China and England Germany,Swiss,
and other holders of US Treasury Debt,
to accept a Reduction of the Value,
of their US Denominated holdings,
and concentrating on that Problem,
so that hopefully US Debt Holders,
wont see that if they convert their US Treasuries into US Dollars,
they could Buy US Businesses and Factories and Land.
Real things that create Real Wealth.

The Question now becomes,
Who will Own America and America’s Wealth Generators,
(US Businesses and Factories and Land),
Americans or Foreigners.

If Americans, Good.
If Foreigners,
then America becomes More and More a Economic Colony,
and then will become a Political Colony.

Yes a Colony.

An Economic Colony,
and then a Political Colony.

The Chinese have a Saying,
The Best War is one in which, Not a Shot is Fired.

As there is no reply link on your previous comment Pat, I would like to point out that the quote from Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54 (1795) doesn’t seem to exist in any online presentations of it. Others have pointed this out before and I made a cursory word search on two websites(Justia was one of them) and found no such quote within either. It is possible the original case papers were so, and what is presented online either edited or condensed. Just a “heads up” should someone rely on it.

-pop

Jetlag

January 16, 2014 at 5:17 PM

@pop de adam

That bogus quote from Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators was probably first circulated before the internet was available to check up on the BS dished out by the NWO’s patriotard liars. They have to be more careful nowadays and usually don’t make up quotes out of whole cloth.

Yet, this is opportunity knocking. A careful study of the bogus quote will reveal some of what the NWO’s patriotard liars could find no legitimate citation for, compelling them to invent a fictitious basis in law.

It’s true that the text reproduced on Justia … http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/54/case.html … and other sites, has omitted that passage. I’m as disappointed as Pop, that I can’t locate it yet. At the bottom of the Justia page however, is their disclaimer that “Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports.”

We have numerous recently documented cases, where all ‘sensitive’ cites have been entirely ‘swept’ from the Internet (The Michigan ‘Coffeebean Case’ is a glaring example). Some of them have even been relegated to ‘Judges Chambers’ and made completely unaccessible. So, merely because the passage you contest isn’t on the Net, that doesn’t preclude it’s actual existence elsewhere in the physical case Record. Very similar language and holding, after all, is widely found in many other cases.

I’ll readily (and very sadly) grant, that too many folks posting cites with conflated commentary do exist, which forces litigants to re-confirm the precision of whatever they use in their briefs, but again, absence of full text found electronically means only that alone.

More than that, your statement about “BS dished out by the NWO’s patriotard liars” was glaringly revealing. Thanks for the stark insight.

Jetlag

January 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM

@Pat Fields

You’re welcome. The passage announces itself as a phony based on its language alone. Educated legislators in late-18th century didn’t write like that. But such clumsily transparent ad copy is typical of the NWO’s patriotard liars in their hard-sell marketing campaigns to misdirect the American body politic.

What exactly do you mean ‘misdirect’? Who are examples of these ‘NWO patriotard liars’?

J.M.

January 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM

.Re: > J.M. … “3 judges ALL agreed that Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars & are not money.”

I told the truth but I am becoming somewhat discouraged because I have not found that case yet. Anyway, while I was sitting here wondering where can it possibly be, the thought flashed into my head that the “Final Court” will simply say, “We disagree.” I want to find this case ANYWAY for two reasons. To show I told the truth, & say I agree with those 3 judges.I don’t give a big rat’s rear end hoot what the Top Court says & I know they will disagree, possibly with the exception of Ruth Ginsberg. There are some of us & many more than 9 who would disagree with them. I’ll keep looking for the case.
P.S. The gall & audacity of the top court saying” Our judgment is not final because it’s right but it’s right because it’s final.

You know, JM, the Supreme Court has become much like Congress in surreptitious toggling between addressing matters strictly germane to the DC city-state’s private municipal jurisdiction and that original and ordinary to the Federal Administration formed in 1789. This is the ruse on which they depend to keep us all bamboozled. We’re ‘expected’ to know the difference by mere context and their convoluted lexicon of double entendre.

Yet the ‘acid test’ is simple enough to perform by determination of ‘Natural Reserved Right’, only perturbed by partial and temporary yielding, of which is otherwise delineated At Law or simple rule of facilitating ‘Equal Right’. Thus ANY ‘ruling’ on ANY ‘statute, ‘code’ or ‘regulation’ which lay beyond that core tenet must ONLY be ‘of, by and for’ the DC city-stste jurisdiction and its municipal ‘domiciliary members’.

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

J.M.

January 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM

“Dollars are made of Paper…..”
Then money does grow on trees. But, I have a Circuit (forget which)Court case where the 3 judges ALL agreed that Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars & are not money.

J.M. … “3 judges ALL agreed that Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars & are not money.”

It would be fabulous if you’d be so kind and generous to dig out and post those cites!

pop de adam

January 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Let them have it, when and if it all crashes let them wear it as a badge of shame. If it is so and you are prepared well, you will have done well for yourself. If it is not to be and you have still prepared well, no harm, no foul. Those of us who live a more or less conventional lifestyle really never had any possibility of affecting any of this, other than avoiding the pitfalls of taking on loans and debts that might have contributed to it.

I recently was reading some article concerning “consent of the governed”, if someone can consent they must necessarily also be able to withhold consent, since consent imports a characteristic of voluntariness in itself, as in only you can make this choice to consent. Then I realized all the mental gymnastics collectivists have thrown at anyone who would question their motives, morals or authority to render that simple phrase of no consequence. Consent becomes collective consent, where collective has more weight than consent even as this collective is actually comprised of the consent of each and everyone of those who must have agreed to it to create this collective. Sovereignty becomes collective sovereignty where once this was a single man or king who posessed complete power and force as a singularity, this becomes a collective singularity(is this absurd?). Often people who question these authorities are told to the effect “Well, this was decided when WE put it up to be voted upon and this is our result and it is now your burden to bear” as if the defect is within us for seeing that they really should have used “I” instead of “WE” as if those who abstained were ever given any choice in the matter or if it should even be relegated to the polls. Somehow we are complicit in our own subjagation, at base the feeling I find myself left with is resentment that they may knowingly or ignorantly be acting in a treasonous manner to human traits such as self-determination, the right to absolutely ignore every would be fool or idiot who believes their cause is my cause.

Again, leave it to them, they can have it. Hopefully we can have a good laugh should the results not be so dire.

Coincidence? This very subject arose in another forum … so, I’ll respond here as I had there … regarding the IMF article …

Excerpt: “Washington would issue much more fiat money … It would be an equity of the commonwealth, not debt.”

In other words, Washington City (and other ‘Capitals’) would assume Title in all things on which the ‘debts’ were attached, constituting an effective, or constructive … Feudal Social Order … which is exactly what I’ve been arguing as the elitist goal for years now.

I’m still looking for the case. I remember making a copy of it at a law library when I was in Indiana. What I quoted was something that impressed me so much I memorized that portion.Also, while searching for that case I came across some things I had forgotten about,e.g. the original 13th amendment about Titles of Nobility and this amendment IS in plenty of different EARLY State Constitutions & other law books. Someone must be close to a law library. However, some law libraries will not allow anyone who is not a licensed attorney to enter. I think this is grounds to rightfully claim that ignorance of the law IS an excuse, if someone is close to that particular type law library. Sorry for the rambling. I will keep looking. It’s got to be here somewhere.

pop de adam
@ > “Caeser recieves two goats and a donkey and he pays with coins bearing his image, whose coins are they now”
Re: the coin Jesus asked, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

I believe in equity, those coins belong to the seller. In law, they are still Caesar’s. I think Caesar knew this too. I also think this the reason the people were amazed at the answer Jesus gave.

J.M. … “those coins belong to the seller. In law, they are still Caesar’s”

A little respectful quibble is put for contemplation. As I understand, the State’s indicia applies its ‘esteem’ and ‘guarantee’ to coin and it’s that ‘benefit’ to both parties using it for trading which renders the exchange thus ‘taxable’ because the ‘benefit’ and ‘convenience’ (no need to weigh or test the metal) constructive obliges recompense.

Ownership Title in the coin fully passes with the metal, the images of the State’s ‘approval’ of the metal, however, remain the exclusive ‘Intellectual Property’ of the State.

Lyndon

January 14, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Everyone here has missed the most obvious problem. Compound Interest is interest on interest. The only reason these “debts” are at “200 year high” is compound interest. For anyone to demand even interest -let alone compound interest- on something “loaned” that never existed in the first place is beyond rational, reasonable, and real. A time will come when enough people will comprehend these simple facts and this “problem” will cool right down or simply go away. There is no crisis other than for the people calling themselves “Banks”.

Lyndon, I can assure you I haven’t missed the problem of interest (which is more accurately ‘complex compounding’ of interest) because I’ve undertaken dis-assembly of the banknote scheme to its essential operation and found it inexorably self-destructive.

All Notes worldwide (whether bank or government issued) are pure credit loaned into perpetual circulation in Principal amount only. On that Principal is applied an additional charge (the bank’s interest fee for providing its proprietary ‘Transaction Facilitation Instruments’, or if by government, a tax on use of its ‘Treasury Notes’) above and beyond the gross Principal. Consequently, the gross Principal is infinitely less than the interest fee or tax generated by it.

To raise the interest or tax, new borrowings of Principal must occur or general default ensues on all loans too slow to amortize completely. That increment to Principal constitutes the complexity of the compounding. One side of the equation automatically magnifies the other in an exponential progression. It’s a ‘Positive Feedback Loop’, where Notes and Debt are co-generating each other.

So, it’s neither banks or interest per se, at root, but the delusional notion of structuring a ‘monetary scheme’ on credit. At the turn of the 18th century, Richard Cantillon was the first to give us the most cogent explanation of how circulating credit destroys Price Discovery at the very heart of sustainable economies, thus is no ‘fresh revelation’, just stupid hubris

Shoot, I MEANT to say that … Consequently, the gross Principal plus charges, is infinitely more than the total of all existing Notes.

palani

January 15, 2014 at 9:11 AM

The entire world is papered over with commerce. There is no way to hide from it and if you stay within this plane then you have not really escaped anything by moving to a different geographical position within it. All governments these days collect paper money (it is called money of account because it really only belongs to the issuer) while specie is money of exchange. The trick then is to stay where you are at and move out of commerce. You have as many rights in this regard as your ancestor had. You set a policy or you might call it a New Years resolution: “I will only accept gold or silver in exchange for my labor”. Then just do it.

palani, there is something that has bothered me about the concept of money of account:

“(it is called money of account because it really only belongs to the issuer)”

This has similar connotations to the oft cited “Render unto Caeser” quote. If these accounts or entities spend this money outside of themselves wouldn’t they have recieved goods or services in exchange. Barring outright theft the only way some one comes into possession of coins with the image of Caeser or money of account is trade, Caeser recieves two goats and a donkey and he pays with coins bearing his image, whose coins are they now? If Caeser turns around siezes these coins, wouldn’t this make him a theif? If money of account is spent it should be considered fugitive, this would also be theft, but not by those that accept it. Those who spend it outside the entity are those who have broken the rules meant to keep it internal to the entity. The defect from my point of view is that the courts seem to have accepted that the situs of FRNs is within the Federal Reserve, and now move it seems to the assumption that any use of fugitive FRNs enlarges this scope. The obvious issue here is in regards to such a taking, if someone recieves FRNs and then are relieved of them in order to repatriate the into the Federal Reserve what ever this person has exchanged the notes for becomes a loss. If you ask for compensation for this boondoggle you are only offered more FRNs. Many think a solution is to be found with 12 USC 411, I myself am skeptical that there is any remedy as such, out through one door, back in through another.

@ pop de adam “Caeser recieves two goats and a donkey and he pays with coins bearing his image, whose coins are they now”

The difference between a coin and a piece of paper is intuitively apparent. The value with the coin is in the metal and not the image of Caesar. All Caesar is doing is proving honest weights and measures to insure that each party knows what he is getting. The coin is lawful money. But don’t be confused that ONLY coin may be lawful money. There might be other forms. As far as I can tell the one attribute that ALL forms of lawful money have is that they don’t come with strings attached. In other words, by accepting lawful money in a trade you don’t need to report its possession to any government for accounting purposes. Lawful money might be clamshells, rocks (or gems), minerals or it might even be a FRN if you have asked for lawful money and this is what they gave you.

Inland bills of exchange have been common for centuries. Here is a good source to examine the rules in the use of them. [A bill of exchange is not money of account … horses of a different color]. Notice that the book is related to all things encountered in maritime trade.

I would refine that a bit to … ‘remove one’s self from the private commercial … jurisdictions … established by governments and banks.’ Commerce is commerce. The distinction is … under what rules of conduct. Common Law preserves right of Private Transaction to the immediate Parties when carefully adhered to.

More than only making exchanges in metallic media … all the parameters of definition uniquely ‘provided’ by governments and banks too, have to be abandoned.

I avoid all forms of commerce like I do VD, herpes and the Plague. I let a third party corporation handle all transactions and the private property ownership issue as well. The thing is everyone you are likely to perform commerce with is going to do so as an agent. As an agent they import the rules and regulations of their principal into the agreement. I suppose one could provide a business card with all sorts of microprint denying or replacing the law that is attached to agents but I doubt if that would be sufficient. Besides if the goal is ownership of private property by attempting to bypass this plank you place yourself in conflict with the stated goals of the communists whereas I prefer to not argue and instead agree with them at all times. Any property you wish to have confiscated you just make a statement that you are the owner and the government will find a way to relieve you of the handicap.

I get around quite a bit of this nonsense by simply finding abandoned property. This is not hard to do as the Federal Reserve has no ability to actually hold on to property and neither do their agents and practically everyone is going to be an agent. You might say I live in a property rich environment since everywhere I property that has been abandoned in exchange for the use of FRNs. Much of the property so claimed is done so of necessity (society hates the nuisance of property being abandoned) and I claim to hold it only for so long as the proper owner shows up to pay for the cost incurred while I hold it for him.

J.M.

January 16, 2014 at 5:35 AM

To Pat Fields,
I do have the case in one of the numerous boxes of material I have accumulated over the years. I just have to find it. I will try hard, I promise. However, I don’t know how long it will take. In the meantime, the following may be of interest. I think you are already aware of the following but maybe someone else is not,so it’s for him/her You will find these excerpts I made, on pages 442 & 443, < for more detail, etc.

Craig v. Missouri, 29 u.s.410
"The language of the constitution is, "no state shall emit bills of credit;" and this, if it means any thing, must mean that no state shall pass a law which has for its object an emission of bills of credit."

"The whole history and legislation of the time prove that, by bills of credit, the framers of the constitution meant paper money,……"

The great end and object of this restriction on the power of the states, will furnish the best definition of the terms under consideration. The whole was intended to exclude every thing from use, as a circulating medium, except gold and silver; and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it.

Since the National Debt cannot be questioned (14th Amendment), maybe the medium of exchange used to create the National debt can be challenged,questioned,etc. Don't feel compassion for me & respond about the 14th.I am aware of it, at least enough to know why it doesn't apply to me. I have used the Kitchen case also, + many others.

J.M.

January 16, 2014 at 5:00 AM

To palani
” ……you have not really escaped anything by moving to a different geographical position ”

Aw shucks. I was planning on relocating to the “Great Lakes Basin.” Hayulls Foar,& shoot. You just took the wind out of my sayulls..

Men: accepting a currency -fiat or not- does not put the man into jurisdiction of any private authority. If a Canadian man accepts FEDERAL RESERVE notes or BANK OF ENGLAND notes for his labour does that trade put the man into jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES or the UNITED KINGDOM? No! Emphatically no! Must a man born on Texas be subject to the rules and regulations of CANADA by accepting BANK OF CANADA notes? No! No! No! If it was as easy as using FEDERAL RESERVE notes to obtain a UNITED STATES citizenship than everyone around the world that uses FEDERAL RESERVE notes would be in and out of jurisdiction every time they used those notes. Relax, its not the money. You get into jurisdiction by being a member of the club/family/group/state/nation or whatever your favorite word for it is.

Lyndon, I’m afraid your conceptualization of jurisdiction it too physically oriented to briefly address here. I would respectively suggest you make an effort to study it in greater depth as it’s far more ephemeral than you presently imagine.

Pat, don’t be “afraid”. Jurisdiction is not a difficult concept. Jurisdiction means authority. What i wrote is true and easy enough for most readers to understand. We don’t need to complicate it. Using private money does not put a man into the jurisdiction of the corporate body said to have created that money. Done.

palani

January 15, 2014 at 6:17 PM

@ Lyndon “using FEDERAL RESERVE notes to obtain a UNITED STATES citizenship”

The Federal Reserve is private rather than public. There is no connection between them and the public side of the United States government. 12 USC 411 represents private law when Congress declares that Federal Reserve Notes are created for one purpose and one purpose only … for exchange between Federal Reserve Banks and its AGENTS.

palani, banknotes (in any form whatsoever) are … loaned … into circulation. Property Right, (both physical and intellectual) therefore, remains in the issuer no matter how many subsequent hands those instruments pass through, nor limited to any length of time they circulate.

The loan of those notes (licensed to denote them as ‘dollars’ and ascribed ‘legal tender’ status) is, solely for the practical purpose of ‘Transaction Facilitation’, wholly predicated on the bank’s approval of credit intrinsic to a borrower’s signature. Thus, banks don’t create anything ‘out of thin air’ … borrowers do by claiming credit and their endorsement attesting to it.

Government ‘benefit’ is invoked by the fact that it ‘guarantees’ the borrower’s credit. Through statutory enforcement and taxation for the ‘protection’ of the banks’ claims, each party ‘invites’ government as their ‘Third Party Intervenor’.

All of this is fundamentally un-Constitutional, so it MUST occur under exclusive federal ‘district’ jurisdiction (provided at Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl’ 2) originally authorized by the Senate to be extended over the States in 1791, to enforce the Whiskey Tax.

The mere claim of that credit by a borrower, constructively traverses the financially ‘Capitalized Person’ under and therefore ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ (more precisely, the foreign DC city-state created in 1871), because the claim is ultimately on the Treasury of the United States.

Lyndon

January 15, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Palani :public (commonwealth of the United States) or private (UNITED STATES), use of FEDERAL RESERVE notes does not bring a man into the jurisdiction of anything.

Palani: what man or woman could possibly claim your money is not yours? If some man or woman said s/he was the “FEDERAL RESERVE” i would require him to appear in open court as “FEDERAL RESERVE” (which he could never do) to claim it.

@ Lyndon “what man or woman could possibly claim your money … ”
The system does not deal with man or woman. They deal with persons .. aka things … or subjects (citizens) who are things that don’t have any right to possess other things.

Why do you say such things as “The system does not deal with man and woman”? Of course you can always step away from using a person and be a man or woman. It is very easy really. I’ve done it for more than a decade with great success.

Lyndon,
@ > It is very easy really.
Really !!! Please tell me more about who, what, when, where & why it is very easy. Anything that is very easy, can be short & sweetly explained easily, I think. However, It’s hard for me to think straight anymore. I’m looking forward to this. Free at last !! Free at last !! Thank God almighty I think I about to be free AT LAST. < Courtesy of MLK Jr.

@ Lyndon “you can always step away from using a person and be a man or woman.”

I have no doubt you have deluded yourself into believing this. I believe achieving the status of purely ‘man’ or ‘woman’ is more difficult than merely making a statement and then reverting back to previous conditions of personhood. You create persons all the time. Every sentence you write on this forum creates a person. The same statement is true of me as well. The act of declaring yourself a man creates a person.

I don’t think Lyndon is deluded whatsoever. I do think Lyndon is trying to delude at least some of us, e.g., fools like me. I am beginning to think Lyndon is an agent,etc. of gov-co. I have asked Lyndon, on other threads to be more specific about his/her “easy success” & Lyndon never responded. I only asked for one example. On this thread, I asked for the whole 9 yards, thinking that might make the difference in getting a response. I will be very pleased & happy to say,I stand corrected if I am mistaken & he/she will forgive me if his/her heart is in the right place.

J.M.

January 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM

palani,
@ > Honestly, you should not be going into public until all private avenues of resolving the conflict have been exhausted. When due process is complete you proceed to hearing.

Agreed and I am convinced you are honest. AND you are precious too. I have tried, as best as I knew how (re: private avenues). After getting nowhere,I just walked into the persecute-ting attorney’s office to inquire info re: the whole 9 yards & I have already said what the bottom line was, right/privilege B.S. I was, offered a deal. Instead of a $300.00 fine & 90 days in jail, $250.00 & no jail time would have resolved the matter. I did not have ANY “dollars” & so they did try to “help me” by setting up a monthly “dollar” payment.plan. palani, Thank you for your help & the best of everything to you & yours.
oh, did you have the Sears & Roebuck catalog in the 2 seater. We did.

palani

January 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM

J.M. “I was, offered a deal”
Why would you want to settle anything verbally? There would not be any record of the procedure. This is why you ask for a business card at the first confrontation … so you might be given full due process. Then you write a nice letter asking all the questions you can think of and mail it. You might want to arrange to have returns sent to a 3rd party notary just to make sure nothing will get ‘lost’. When they ignore your questions (you give them 72 hours minimum) then write another telling them they are in fault for not responding. Then finally after another 72 hours you default them. Get an affidavit from the notary and if ever hauled into court you tell ‘his honor’ that there are no issues that you are aware of in dispute and give the court copies of all the papers. I would even have them recorded at the county because these things can come back after a couple years to haunt you.

Yes. Sears was the best. Montgomery Ward was lower quality.

palani

January 17, 2014 at 2:49 PM

J.M.

Not being paranoid about this but if you ever do have to go into the lions den take a couple friends with you. You might even take a pen camera with you and a recording device. Strange things can happen to you when you have no witnesses handy. Usually these things involve violence, planted evidence and fabricated testimony.

It’s very difficult for an individual to prove that he is a “man” or “woman” rather than a “person”. But, likewise, it’s very difficult for government to prove that you are a “person” rather than a “man” or “woman”. I believe that claiming to be a “man made in God’s image” should be done under OATH and introduced into EVIDENCE on the RECORD of a court proceeding. I believe that the oath that I’m a man made in God’s image should be accompanied by an intelligent denial that I am a “person” under whatever statute or code section I’m being charged under.

Once I swear that I am a “man made in God’s image” (and present evidence of that claim), the government will have to put one or more people on the witness stand to prove that I am not such a “man”–but I am, instead, a “person”. I’d pay money to see a government witness try to convince a jury that I am not a “man made in God’s image”–but I am a “person”. The idea that anyone would try makes me laugh.

Of course, government could claim that the word “person” includes “man made in God’s image,” and that’s fine with me. So long as they recognize me as a “man made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) and who is “endowed by [my] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (Declaration of Independence), I’m good to go. Having that status does not necessarily mean that I’ll win in court. But I’ll have a good chance of prevailing.

Once you raise the issue of whether you are a “man made in God’s image” or a “person” (and do so under oath), the government should have to address that issue. I don’t think they can. I know it’ll be funny to watch them try.

PERSONally, I think it’s the way a judge &/or jury understands the meaning of anything presented
to them as to the outcome of the matter/charges,etc. Once again,I’m so glad that Martens was not the judge in your MOOA case. I have had several 1/2 (6) juries to find “me” guilty of not having the required “stamp of approval documents” allegedly required for traveling from point A to point B in my automobile.They believe if they have to have those documents, everybody does, & nobody else is “better than they are.” I had one jury member to say to me much later, “who do you think you are? you’re no better than I am. If I am required to have a driver license, so are you.” Enuff said.

P.S. I don’t think any member of a jury wants to think of himself or herself as an animal tho.

palani

January 16, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Matters between the defendant and plaintiff should by rights be determined in private before any attempt is made to judicially determine these matters in public. All any court should be left to determine are issues that cannot be resolved privately. If there are elements to a crime then all elements must be determined to be relevant and any single element that is not relevant should result in a dismissal of charges privately before a judicial actor even gets involved. One of these elements might be whether you are a person (aka thing) being contemplated by whatever law you are said to be in violation of or whether you are a man (or woman) and not a person as contemplated by that law. If the controversy cannot be settled privately then it goes before the judicial actor. Have you given him the authority to decide whether you are a man (or woman) or a person? As delusional as some of these cross dressing pervs are I would prefer to withhold any appearance of consent from court until I had a clue as to whether the size of their retirement hinged upon the ‘quality’ of their judgment.

Hi palani,
@ Matters between the defendant and plaintiff should by rights be determined in private

I don’t know how to arrange that. Sincerely wish I did. I only know what an already decided arrangement, excuse me, arraignment is. A D.A. told me once upon a time that “any right is a privilege and any privilege is a right.” To me, that’s like saying heads you win & tails I lose.

palani

January 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM

@ J.M. “I don’t know how to arrange that”

Your actions might be conditioned on the severity of the charge but one possible approach is to immediately take on administrative action (NOTICE, FAULT and DEFAULT) prior to any judicial proceeding as part of your due process. If hauled into court prematurely you gently inform the judicial actor that you have not completed the due process phase, have not been afforded your due right to inquire and that you request an extension to permit administrative process to be completed in an honest attempt to determine what the nature of the charge levied against you consists of. To me this sounds reasonable and your request should be granted. Honestly, you should not be going into public until all private avenues of resolving the conflict have been exhausted. When due process is complete you proceed to hearing.

Lyndon

January 16, 2014 at 6:32 PM

All:

i’ve a book coming out this year. When it’s published maybe you’ll learn what it means to be a man.
But i’ll give you a clue: this stuff is sometimes so simple its right in front of you and you can’t see it because most of you have been bangin’ around the legal system so long you can’t think clearly. Start thinking critically and get away from process and procedure for awhile. You are falling for a word game because you don’t -and are not qualified to- speak the language. Do you need someone to hold your hand now? Did you get the hint?

My main comment on this thread was that using a buck, a dollar, a pound, a yen, etc. does not put a man in jurisdiction. I’ve never heard of or read a controversy where a man or woman was brought into jurisdiction by being in possession of notes. A “bank account” is another matter. If you have one correct that damn relationship. Duh! How difficult is that to do?

I think you just might be on to something. We need to get together & hold hands. Sounds like a winner. Also, I think if we can get together, to hold hands, if we stand in a circle,holding hands, more power/energy will exude out. I sure would hate to be on the receiving end of all that force !!! When will your book be available this year? By Spring, hopefully.? I’m getting excited.